NFC West

ON RAY RICE. I usually love your column, but I was troubled by the section in today’s MMQB on Ray Rice’s press conference with his wife regarding their infamous Atlantic City elevator incident. Domestic violence against men by women is a huge problem in our society due to our culture of male bravado and toughness leading to most cases going unreported, allowing the violence to continue. While it’s hard to conceive of a situation in which Rice was justified in knocking Palmer out, it is important to remember that if she was being violent with Rice, his first reaction (as with many people) could have been to fight. If that was the case, that his body’s first reaction to being attacked was to fight back, then it isn’t so hard to picture how he, a top-tier athlete, might have accidentally knocked out his wife before he could stop his initial bodily reaction. Saying that there is never any excuse to get physical with a woman is exceedingly ignorant and propagates the stereotypes and ideas that make life a living hell for men being abused by their wives or girlfriends. Women are just as capable as men of physically abusing their significant others, and should therefore be under the same scrutiny as men in a situation where both parties seem to be the obvious victim of domestic violence.

—Ben C.

Sorry, Ben. I cannot see the argument the way you see it. It certainly is reasonable to suggest that the woman could have been at partial fault here. However, she was the one who was dragged unconscious out of an elevator by Rice. Are there cases in which females are overly aggressive and hurt males? I am sure there are. But there is absolutely no evidence in this case to suggest that.

ON A TOUGHER DUI SANCTION.While I would commend the players’ union for adding appropriate punishment to the substance abuse policy, a one-game suspension for a DUI conviction is a laughable deterrent. I would suggest at least four games, if not six. Make these coddled players seriously think about what repercussions their actions may cause by getting behind the wheel after a night of drinking.

—Jared, Silver Spring, Md.

Thank you for writing. While I agree with you that drunk driving should be penalized by the NFL more severely than it currently is, I cannot view a first-time DUI offense as being justifiable to miss 25% or 40% of the season. A one-game suspension is a good start and I believe it will be a better deterrent then the current system.

ON DAN SNYDER.Seems to me that the Washington football team’s name issue has been going on for many years and there is always going to be a stalemate because Dan Snyder won’t change the name. Has any thought been given by Roger Goodell and/or the other owners that if/when Snyder sells majority ownership of the team or if ownership is otherwise transferred, that a condition of sale or transfer would be a name change? Of course, you run the risk of the team not changing hands for years on end, but at some point, Snyder will either sell or pass away (sorry, I know that sounds morbid). In the meantime, hopefully they can negotiate for a name change, but this way, there is a guarantee that it will occur at some time in the future.

—Yatin

TALK BACK

Have a question for Peter King? Send it along to talkback@themmqb.com and it might be included in next Tuesday’s mailbag. Be sure to include your name and hometown.

That is an interesting concept. But if Dan Snyder owns the team for, say, the next 25 years, and I believe that’s quite possible, this certainly won’t help the situation the league and the team is in now.

MORE ON SNYDER.The fundamental flaw in your Redskins argument is that you assume Daniel Snyder should, or would, do what is in the best interest of the NFL. After the way the team was treated in the salary cap episode, why in the world would he do something that is in the best interest of the league as a whole? At least without massive compensation from the league?

—Stephanie, Evansville, Ind.

The only motivation Snyder has to do something now, other than listening to his conscience, is that he risks the wrath of the other 31 owners by continuing to make this a story for the next two or three years. I am not saying that he will continue to make it a story. The outside world will. But a headline is a headline, regardless of who prompts it.

ON OTHERCAT.I am offended by the name “Othercat.” I hope you will join me in a crusade to persuade Mr. Benoit to change the name to a more cat-respectful name. Like “Mr. Fizzles.”

First step, if there is any legal system left that still understands personal accountability, would be to reject the suit and have them go back through the team doctors, coaches and gm's or prove that Rozell/Taglibue directed teams to inject players and not inform them of the potential effects.

What does Goodell have to do with Keith Van Horne and his team doctor?

It would be something that may change the whole perception of the league if coaches like Noll, Landry, Shula, Walsh, Gibbs, Madden, Parcells, Ditka, (does not deserve to be in this group but his ex players are very very loud), Jimmy Johnson, Belchick were/are directing team doctors to inject players and leave out the details.

There is no way that this practice is allowed to happen without their knowledge.

We all understand how each generation builds, but the players from yesteryear believe that because when they played, they could not generate the interest or revenue that today's players due, but you can not escape the sense that they are still wanting to cash in (mismanaged their retirement perhaps?)

I am not clear that there is value in having someone playing hurt, but having them played injured seems like the quality of performance would be limited.

Reporting on the NFL has, for many years, included talk of a player getting "an injection" before the game so he could play, or even at halftime. Of course we're never told what the injection contains. If a doctor is telling you that this injection will help you return to the field, then I don't blame the players. We can't expect them to be medical experts and have a full understanding of any long-term consequences from the drugs the team docs are giving them.

All of this is part and parcel of football culture in our country. If you're hurt you need to "man up" and get back on the field. You don't want to let the team down. So-and-so had a similar injury and he was able to play, why can't you?

Players are treated like cattle and are used until they are used up. I don't care what their paycheck looks like. They're NOT doctors, so it's foolish to put the blame on them for the consequences of taking these drugs.

@Bongo Players know this going in...the first thing they hear "perform or get cut and we will find someone who will".

All players are expected to play hurt, the question here is if they were injured and lied to by team doctors and coaches/gm. Yeah Billy, get back out there even though you now run a 5.8 because you are injuried?

How that gets tied back to Rozelle; Taglibue and Goodell is my question?

About the DUI, all you have to do is point to Donte Stallworth. One person died from an athlete DUI. 1 game for first offenders? That is a joke. You can do something with a chance to end someone's life, and you miss 1 game.

DUI in our society should be a felony, first offense. You have to make the punishment for crime deter crime, to a degree. Doesn't always work, but if it wipes out 60% of the stupidity as a whole, then that is 6 out of 10 drunks off the roads. I like those odds better than 10 out of 10.

For the argument below that states about Peter King's kid being ran over by a drunk driver, I totally agree, though you have a different circumstance with certainly more press. Press coverage drives the disipline. I personally believe that if you are impaired and kill someone due to that impairment, then it should at least be second degree murder. Honestly, you know you are getting drunk, and therefore using a car (weapon) is pre-meditated in most cases. Yes I know there are exceptions, but it is all about getting that 6 out of 10. Then you have 4 morons to worry about.

@JeffWBrown : I like your point about premeditation. When I'm at a bar and I know that I'm driving, I know that I have to be responsible and keep my drinking under control. Going from "having a beer" to being drunk - or over the legal limit - doesn't just magically happen. Not to mention the fact that NFL players can afford to pay a taxi or hire a driver for the night if they know they'll be drinking.

Here is an idea. Instead of sideline doctors being an employee of the NFL or local team, make them employees of the players union. No player would want their agent to be an NFL employee, so why have a team doctor that is more beholden to the team's owner than the patient. How much money the union gets from the NFL to hire those doctors would be something for them to negotiate. And if they don't think they got enough money, or the players want better doctors, then they can pay more in union dues to cover the expense.

It's a bad thing - don't get me wrong; but calling it attempted murder is a stretch to me. That is assuming that someone is planning on murdering someone when they drink and drive - I think most people think they're "ok" and/or they will not hurt anyone. Does it need a heavier sentence? I don't know, a suspension from a game and a heavy fine; plus some alcohol and drug counseling/rehab might be a good place to start. We cannot thoroughly punish someone for potential dangers - we have to punish someone for what they've actually done.

As to call someone out of their minds may be a stretch - some might be in their right mind but have different experiences. ;)

Ah so sorry, not trying to haggle over the term; just wondering how to punish something like this. Potential or actual? There are other "things" and "actions" that have the potential to do great harm (I don't want to discount that at all) but are not all treated equally... Where is the standard. Now I'm getting philosophical - you can tell me to stop now. :D

No no don't stop. Lord knows part of the issue may be a lack of dialogue.

Here is the deal - if I drive like a maniac in traffic, say 100 mph and I am serving strong cutting people off, I can be charged with a crime even if sober.

A player who smokes dope is treated the same as a drunk driver which is insanity. A player who takes Ritalin is treated the same.

Goodell claims to care about the league's image. Yet when one of his employees drinks and drives he threatens to kill the very people who give him them their money. Maybe the NFL big wigs are huge Don Draper fans and long for the days where driving surround with s beer was acceptable.

There does seem to be some flexibility in it - i.e., a first office could be *at least* a game suspension, which can be extended/added too as situations warrant. If the "baseline" or minimum sanction is a game suspension then they grow from there that would allow for sanctioning to be more appropriate to the incident. I.e., so the player/personnel guy/coach/owner who drives drunk on a rural road, 2 miles to his home under the speed limit might receive a lesser sanction than the player/personnel/guy/coach/owner who drives drunk down the middle of Manhattan 20mph over the speed limit in the middle of rush hour.

In the rural area there are probably kids running around in the streets. I am not crazy about the idea of saying "sometimes it is not so bad"

A friend of mine got plowed in such a car. He survived but was in casts fun the chest down for months. We were in middle school and it was may of 1988, before cell phones. He lived in a rural area and was walking home at 1 am. He was walking on the shoulder of the road and wham.

He spent his summer vacation in the hospital and could never play sports again because some idiot was drunk driving.

True. True. Lots of situations to consider I suppose. And I hear what you are saying - I'm just not sure we can "punish" equally for potential perceived dangers. Seems a 1st offense should be more educational if there are not mitigating circumstances (such as the rural road w/the kids playing on it) where a basic sanction can be used in combination with other actions to prevent.

2.If they were on an elevator and she cracked him with a cell phone and kept wailing and he pushed her away and in a drunken stupor she hit her head against the wall and fell down, and was knocked out, that is not quite the evil picture as him delivering a right cross or a haymaker.if she is pummeling him with a phone in an elevator it is not like he can walk away.

We don't always get what we want in life. Everyone expects that just because all the civil rights groups are pushing for name change, that we'll get the happy Hollywood ending where the name is changed and everybody lives happily ever after. It's like if you go ask your boss for a raise. You can make an impassioned plea, stick up for yourself, etc. Ideally he will say you're right, I see it your way, shake your hand and give you the raise. The reality is often we're told 'no'. These groups (some who are legitimate, some just trying to serve their own agenda) can fight the good fight, but they may not get the resolution they desire.

That is a decent answer Bongo; and it does leave a lot of room for interpretation. If *I* as someone not a part of the group hear their concerns and deem them as political and self-serving then where does it go? These things are challenging - I think our collective skill as a country in being able to handle difficult conversations has taken such a huge hit. Maybe it's the 24hour news cycle... we're seeing the effects of this in the Legislative branch - lots of bickering, sounds bites - no resolutions, collaborations and progress.

This talk of the Redskins name is the new path for a minority to make a change. Complain enough through social media to pressure someone to do what you want, like fire someone for saying something insensitive but well within their American right.

I like the football info, Peter, but this column seems to have gotten much more political in the past 2-3 years.

@TimHi@Bonecrusher77 It's simply the name of a business... It affects NOTHING of their running game... it does NOT affect who makes the team... it does not affect their play calling... or ANYTHING about football actually.

How is it a football issue to you? FOOTBALL issue. Not political issue. Not what sponsors think, not what their fans think, not what the real Indian people think etc...

But FOOTBALL issues. Does the Redskins name affect their strength training program?

Does it affect how they do their drills? How many repetitions they do of a drill on the practice field?

@Sportsfan18: Yeah, but it's still a football issue. That's like saying that reporting on contracts and financial stuff isn't a "football issue". It's part of the game. The teams are part of the league.

So Pete, I love you, but what is the statute of limitations??? I say never. The league knew all along that this game was ridiculously dangerous for these guys, and still profits off of their pain. It's really crazy when you think about it.

@Aaron14@Prov1 : Besides the fact that there are a million reasons why these guys may have waited. Maybe they were given bad advice? Maybe they're NOT DOCTORS and never made the connection until other cases were publicized? Who knows.

I get the point that there's no real way to investigate what took place in a locker room 30+ years ago, but their concerns and issues are no less legit.

While I empathize with Jeremy Newberry and the others, I can't believe they can plead ignorance to all of this. I also suspect Toradol is not the only medication they ever put in their bodies that could have an effect on their organs. Most of these guys are university educated (to some degree) and have their own doctors and advisers.

I realize many were around before you were just able to go online and google things, but some common sense is required. Your body, you are responsible for what goes in it. Just like the PED clause in the CBA. And even if they knew, how many can honestly say they would have refused treatment? Like the concussion sufferers who hide their conditions?

In regards to the new lawsuit by NFL ex-players, you criticize the presence of players from decades ago as co-plaintiffs. I think their presence in the lawsuit is part of the larger point being made, namely that the disregard for employee safety in the NFL is not only systemic but historic as well. This is not a recent problem by a few rogue teams or trainers, but a product of a fundamental disposition the league and its ownership has held toward the players for generations. It goes back to the issue of proper compensation for employees who work in hazardous conditions. Much like issues in the coal mining industry, the health of NFL employees has always come second to profits.

@dksherlock@matthew.tt.powell It's not the players looking for a payday. It's the lawyers who have convinced these players they can have a piece of the money pie. Rest assured, when all is said and done, the lawyers will disproportionately benefit from this lawsuit, not the players.